A Dorset agricultural building appeal has overturned a refusal of prior approval for a new sheep-farm storage building in the Dorset National Landscape. Inspector Lewis Condé decided on 21st October 2026 that the building met the agricultural permitted development test, despite the council’s concerns about necessity and its effect on an open hillside.
The case concerns land off Dukes Close, Martinstown, where a farming business keeps about 70 sheep across several parcels of grazing land. The council initially questioned whether the agricultural unit reached five hectares. Further grazing licences resolved that point on appeal, leaving the need for storage and landscape design in dispute.
For anyone relying on Part 6 of the General Permitted Development Order, this is a useful reminder that the question is not whether a farm has found the single smallest or cheapest building imaginable. The Inspector looked at the established business, existing storage arrangements, the terrain and the actual effect of putting a building in this landscape.
Why the Dorset agricultural building appeal succeeded
The proposal was a portal-framed agricultural storage building, applied for under Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. Dorset Council refused prior approval, raising both the threshold for the size of the agricultural unit and questions about whether the building was reasonably necessary for agriculture.
On appeal, evidence of additional grazing licences persuaded the council that the unit exceeded the five-hectare threshold. The Inspector then assessed what the operation needed to store. He was satisfied there was a real working sheep enterprise, rather than a speculative attempt to justify a new rural building.
Existing machinery, equipment and feed were stored in several locations, including rented premises. Some machinery lacked adequate weatherproof shelter. Hay and straw were kept around 20 miles from the principal sheep collecting area. Moving established storage requirements into one building on the unit had an operational logic.
The Dorset agricultural building appeal also examined the council’s reliance on stocking density. Sheep numbers and grazing capacity may help explain the scale of a farming enterprise, but they do not directly measure the floorspace needed for machinery, grassland management equipment or feed. Rotational grazing, seasonal feeding and forage work all affect the range of equipment that a farm needs.
There were gaps in the evidence. The appellant had not provided a precise floorspace calculation for every item to be stored, and some machinery related to forage production on land licensed for grazing. The Inspector did not ignore those issues. He concluded instead that the wider machinery and feed needs, combined with deficiencies in existing storage, provided a tangible justification for the building.
That is an important distinction. Reasonable necessity is not the same as proving that every other possible storage arrangement is impossible. A proposal can satisfy Class A when the evidence demonstrates a functional agricultural need and an appropriate relationship with the unit.
Why landscape designation did not prevent approval
The site lies within the Dorset National Landscape, in open chalk downland with rolling hills, dry valleys and an agricultural character. The Dorset agricultural building appeal therefore also tested the siting, design and external appearance of the scheme under paragraph A.2(2)(i) of Part 6, Class A.
The building would be sizeable and visible from parts of the nearby road and a public footpath. It would change the open appearance of its immediate field. However, the Inspector distinguished that localised effect from harm to the character of the wider designated landscape.
The portal-framed design was straightforward and used materials normally associated with agriculture. The chosen location was away from the road but below higher ground. It would sit against the rising landform rather than breaking an open skyline. Boundary vegetation would filter views from several directions.
Those details helped the building fit into its rural setting. The Inspector considered the Dorset National Landscape Management Plan 2026 to 2031 and its emphasis on sensitive siting and protection of scenic qualities. He found the scale and location of this working agricultural building acceptable within the landscape rather than automatically objectionable because the land is designated.
Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was also relevant. The Inspector expressly considered the duty to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty. He concluded that the proposal would conserve the area’s broader open downland character and landscape qualities.
Conditions on ground levels and lighting
The Dorset agricultural building appeal did not produce an unconditional approval. Before development starts, the applicant must obtain approval for the building’s finished floor levels and associated cut, fill or remodelling, measured against existing levels and a fixed datum point. That is intended to prevent earthworks changing the landform in an unacceptable way.
External lighting is also controlled: it may not be installed as part of the development without approved details. Dark skies form part of the designated landscape’s character, and even a simple agricultural building can affect them if lighting is poorly designed.
The Inspector did not add a separate commencement condition. The five-year time limit already imposed through paragraph A.2(2)(vi) of Part 6 applies to this prior approval. Adding another time limit would have duplicated the statutory control rather than solving a planning problem.
What farmers and consultants can take from this appeal
For applicants, the strongest evidence is usually practical. Identify the land making up the unit, provide clear evidence of tenure, explain the actual enterprise, and itemise where machines, feed and other equipment are presently stored. A statement that a building would simply be convenient is less persuasive than evidence showing what work it would support.
The Dorset agricultural building appeal also demonstrates why the red line, building position and ground levels matter. A proposal that appears conspicuous on a plan may be much less so against a hillside and existing hedges. Conversely, a building raised on an artificial platform or lit across open country may have impacts that an ordinary elevation drawing cannot explain.
For councils, there is a difference between assessing an application for full planning permission and determining prior approval. In this case the Inspector explained that development plan policy does not supply a free-standing reason to refuse something that is permitted development. Policy and guidance are relevant only insofar as they assist with the statutory permitted development and prior approval questions.
This Dorset agricultural building appeal does not mean every proposed farm building will pass these tests. A different holding, weaker operational evidence, more prominent skyline position or greater earthworks could lead to a different conclusion. This decision illustrates the fact-specific approach rather than creating a blanket exemption for farm buildings in National Landscapes.
Decision and source
Dorset Council application P/PABA/2026/00355 was allowed on 21st October 2026, appeal 6010895. It concerns England and is an Inspector’s decision, not binding court precedent. The decision and conditions can be checked through the Planning Inspectorate appeal record. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments